Wieland

The frequency with which certain questions as to bills of particulars and interrogatories in patent suits are presented to this court makes it desirable to formulate certain rules in order to settle the practice in these matters. The two cases discussed in this opinion have been selected because, between them, they raise practically all of the points most frequently presented to this court.

The general principles upon which bills of particulars and interrogatories will be allowed by this court have been adequately set forth by Judge Bledsoe, in Wilson v. Union Tool Co. (D. C.) 275 F. 624, 627 , as follows:

“ * * * This court is disposed to accept the suggestions indulged in by Judge Augustus N. Hand of the Southern District of New York, contained in McLeod Tire Corp. v. B. F. Goodrich Co., 268 F. 205, 206 . It is there said: ‘It has been the practice in this district to attempt to simplify the issues and limit the testimony necessary at the trial by allowing inspection and compelling answer to interrogatories in patent cases very liberally. We have stopped little short of requiring almost everything except the names of witnesses and such information as would enable the…